Minnesota Sports Forum

Hicks123 wrote:
You can argue all you want about whether Barea or Rubio was the "better - or least worse" player....but the fact that it was even a remotely close competition between those 2 players does not look well on Rubio. Because if not aware, Barea BLOWS!

Rubio and Barea had 10.6 point difference in their 4th quarter net ratings. So they were remotely close only in case you think that for example Knicks and Utah (10.5 pts difference in Net ratings) or Golden State and Milwaukee (10.3 pts difference) were remotely close last year.

Mikkeman wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:
You can argue all you want about whether Barea or Rubio was the "better - or least worse" player....but the fact that it was even a remotely close competition between those 2 players does not look well on Rubio. Because if not aware, Barea BLOWS!

Rubio and Barea had 10.6 point difference in their 4th quarter net ratings. So they were remotely close only in case you think that for example Knicks and Utah (10.5 pts difference in Net ratings) or Golden State and Milwaukee (10.3 pts difference) were remotely close last year.

Heh, I'm not sure what Hicks was getting at. While their 4th quarter FG% may have been similarly poor, there is a lot more to the game than that and their respective On/Off ratings demonstrate a dramatic difference. The plain fact of the matter is Adelman waited too damn long to get Rubio back into the game!

Q12543 wrote:

Mikkeman wrote:

Hicks123 wrote:
You can argue all you want about whether Barea or Rubio was the "better - or least worse" player....but the fact that it was even a remotely close competition between those 2 players does not look well on Rubio. Because if not aware, Barea BLOWS!

Rubio and Barea had 10.6 point difference in their 4th quarter net ratings. So they were remotely close only in case you think that for example Knicks and Utah (10.5 pts difference in Net ratings) or Golden State and Milwaukee (10.3 pts difference) were remotely close last year.

Heh, I'm not sure what Hicks was getting at. While their 4th quarter FG% may have been similarly poor, there is a lot more to the game than that and their respective On/Off ratings demonstrate a dramatic difference. The plain fact of the matter is Adelman waited too damn long to get Rubio back into the game!

Are we comparing ON/OFF stats from just the 4th quarter... or comparing the 1st quarter to the 4th quarter. The Wolves were very different teams in those two quarters, regardless of who was running the point. Whistles get swallowed and teams have to create more opportunities vs. better defense.

The entire team struggled in the 4th quarter that season. The free throw attempts plummeted and the team shot below 40%. Was that all Barea's fault? Was that all because Rubio wasn't there?

Abe, Mikkeman is citing the 4th quarter stats only. We were a different team with Rubio running the point.

Q12543 wrote:Abe, Mikkeman is citing the 4th quarter stats only. We were a different team with Rubio running the point.

Careful... that almost makes it seem like Rubio wasn't a detriment in the 4th quarter in 2014. Both players were atrocious. Barea was simply super duper bad instead of super bad.

Here's one set of stats: http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#!/clutch/advanced/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4&TeamID=1610612750

Rubio had a NEGATIVE net rating of -30.2. Barea was worse at 33.3... in games decided by 5 points or fewer. That team completely shit the bed in the 4th quarter compared to the other 3 quarters enough times that it wasn't a fluke or small sample size. From Adelman's goofy rotations to Rubio going weeks without making a 4th quarter basket to Barea sucking balls to Love missing random bunnies and free throws to Pekovic missing damn near literally every last-second shot...

Sorry to nitpick... but Rubio was a HUGE reason for the Wolves failures down the stretch that season. Just because he wasn't alone in the ineptitude shouldn't get him off the hook.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Abe, Mikkeman is citing the 4th quarter stats only. We were a different team with Rubio running the point.

Careful... that almost makes it seem like Rubio wasn't a detriment in the 4th quarter in 2014. Both players were atrocious. Barea was simply super duper bad instead of super bad.

Here's one set of stats: http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#!/clutch/advanced/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4&TeamID=1610612750

Rubio had a NEGATIVE net rating of -30.2. Barea was worse at 33.3... in games decided by 5 points or fewer. That team completely shit the bed in the 4th quarter compared to the other 3 quarters enough times that it wasn't a fluke or small sample size. From Adelman's goofy rotations to Rubio going weeks without making a 4th quarter basket to Barea sucking balls to Love missing random bunnies and free throws to Pekovic missing damn near literally every last-second shot...

Sorry to nitpick... but Rubio was a HUGE reason for the Wolves failures down the stretch that season. Just because he wasn't alone in the ineptitude shouldn't get him off the hook.

Abe that same clutch stat shows that Rubio also had higher TS% than Love in last 5 minutes of 4th quarter when the score difference was less than 5 points. So if we are using just clutch stats (that are even more noisy since sample size is smaller) then we cannot point Ricky's inefficient scoring without pointing Love's even more inefficient scoring. Too bad that you cannot select whole 4th quarter and OTs for those clutch stats. It would give little bit more reliable sample size to make argument.

I agree that Rubio's started that year by playing awfully in 4th quarter but his 4th quarter play improved as season progressed. For example his 4th quarter net rating prior all star break was -7.4 but after that it was +2.7 but still Adelman played Barea at least half of the 4th quarter.

Mikkeman wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Abe, Mikkeman is citing the 4th quarter stats only. We were a different team with Rubio running the point.

Careful... that almost makes it seem like Rubio wasn't a detriment in the 4th quarter in 2014. Both players were atrocious. Barea was simply super duper bad instead of super bad.

Here's one set of stats: http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#!/clutch/advanced/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4&TeamID=1610612750

Rubio had a NEGATIVE net rating of -30.2. Barea was worse at 33.3... in games decided by 5 points or fewer. That team completely shit the bed in the 4th quarter compared to the other 3 quarters enough times that it wasn't a fluke or small sample size. From Adelman's goofy rotations to Rubio going weeks without making a 4th quarter basket to Barea sucking balls to Love missing random bunnies and free throws to Pekovic missing damn near literally every last-second shot...

Sorry to nitpick... but Rubio was a HUGE reason for the Wolves failures down the stretch that season. Just because he wasn't alone in the ineptitude shouldn't get him off the hook.

Abe that same clutch stat shows that Rubio also had higher TS% than Love in last 5 minutes of 4th quarter when the score difference was less than 5 points. So if we are using just clutch stats (that are even more noisy since sample size is smaller) then we cannot point Ricky's inefficient scoring without pointing Love's even more inefficient scoring. Too bad that you cannot select whole 4th quarter and OTs for those clutch stats. It would give little bit more reliable sample size to make argument.

I agree that Rubio's started that year by playing awfully in 4th quarter but his 4th quarter play improved as season progressed. For example his 4th quarter net rating prior all star break was -7.4 but after that it was +2.7 but still Adelman played Barea at least half of the 4th quarter.

And yet we're still playing the "But Rubio wasn't the worst" game. He sucked. We have to be honest when discussing EVERY player or the discussion becomes disingenuous. I don't know any other player in recent Wolves history (although Wiggins is close thus far) who gets the benefit of the doubt almost every time like Rubio.

He's supposed to be MUCH better than Barea. But, the rub is... he's supposed to be better than most of the league at his position. Yet, when he isn't... we obscure that fact with a bunch of noise to excuse his poor play. He was terrible in the 4th quarter in 2014.

It's ok to criticize our favorite players when they suck balls.

Mikkeman wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Abe, Mikkeman is citing the 4th quarter stats only. We were a different team with Rubio running the point.

Careful... that almost makes it seem like Rubio wasn't a detriment in the 4th quarter in 2014. Both players were atrocious. Barea was simply super duper bad instead of super bad.

Here's one set of stats: http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#!/clutch/advanced/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4&TeamID=1610612750

Rubio had a NEGATIVE net rating of -30.2. Barea was worse at 33.3... in games decided by 5 points or fewer. That team completely shit the bed in the 4th quarter compared to the other 3 quarters enough times that it wasn't a fluke or small sample size. From Adelman's goofy rotations to Rubio going weeks without making a 4th quarter basket to Barea sucking balls to Love missing random bunnies and free throws to Pekovic missing damn near literally every last-second shot...

Sorry to nitpick... but Rubio was a HUGE reason for the Wolves failures down the stretch that season. Just because he wasn't alone in the ineptitude shouldn't get him off the hook.

Abe that same clutch stat shows that Rubio also had higher TS% than Love in last 5 minutes of 4th quarter when the score difference was less than 5 points. So if we are using just clutch stats (that are even more noisy since sample size is smaller) then we cannot point Ricky's inefficient scoring without pointing Love's even more inefficient scoring. Too bad that you cannot select whole 4th quarter and OTs for those clutch stats. It would give little bit more reliable sample size to make argument.

I agree that Rubio's started that year by playing awfully in 4th quarter but his 4th quarter play improved as season progressed. For example his 4th quarter net rating prior all star break was -7.4 but after that it was +2.7 but still Adelman played Barea at least half of the 4th quarter.

Let's hope that 4th quarter improvement for Ricky that you cite is a continuing trend, mikkeman, because it's clear to me that neither Love nor Rubio have been clutch 4th quarter players. It's interesting to me that the only clutch last second shots I can remember either of them making happened in that same game...that wonderful win in LA against the Clippers. We all remember Love's 3 to win the game in overtime, but somewhat forgotten is Rubio's corner 3 as regulation time expired to send the game into overtime. Even more amazing about Rubio's shot is he had missed all of his threes that game, I believe, and was having a terrible shooting game.

As I said before, we don't know yet if Ricky will ever be a clutch 4th quarter player, so we can only hope. Now that this team seems to have more offensive weapons than they have had in a long time, I think Ricky can become a very good 4th quarter player by playing disruptive defense and getting the ball to the right scorer at the right time.

Any discussion of Ricky vs. Barea in the 4th needs to consider both sides of the ball. When you take into consideration Barea's much worse defense, Adelman's decision to play JJ so much at crunch time becomes even more puzzling.

longstrangetrip wrote:

Mikkeman wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Abe, Mikkeman is citing the 4th quarter stats only. We were a different team with Rubio running the point.

Careful... that almost makes it seem like Rubio wasn't a detriment in the 4th quarter in 2014. Both players were atrocious. Barea was simply super duper bad instead of super bad.

Here's one set of stats: http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#!/clutch/advanced/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4&TeamID=1610612750

Rubio had a NEGATIVE net rating of -30.2. Barea was worse at 33.3... in games decided by 5 points or fewer. That team completely shit the bed in the 4th quarter compared to the other 3 quarters enough times that it wasn't a fluke or small sample size. From Adelman's goofy rotations to Rubio going weeks without making a 4th quarter basket to Barea sucking balls to Love missing random bunnies and free throws to Pekovic missing damn near literally every last-second shot...

Sorry to nitpick... but Rubio was a HUGE reason for the Wolves failures down the stretch that season. Just because he wasn't alone in the ineptitude shouldn't get him off the hook.

Abe that same clutch stat shows that Rubio also had higher TS% than Love in last 5 minutes of 4th quarter when the score difference was less than 5 points. So if we are using just clutch stats (that are even more noisy since sample size is smaller) then we cannot point Ricky's inefficient scoring without pointing Love's even more inefficient scoring. Too bad that you cannot select whole 4th quarter and OTs for those clutch stats. It would give little bit more reliable sample size to make argument.

I agree that Rubio's started that year by playing awfully in 4th quarter but his 4th quarter play improved as season progressed. For example his 4th quarter net rating prior all star break was -7.4 but after that it was +2.7 but still Adelman played Barea at least half of the 4th quarter.

Let's hope that 4th quarter improvement for Ricky that you cite is a continuing trend, mikkeman, because it's clear to me that neither Love nor Rubio have been clutch 4th quarter players. It's interesting to me that the only clutch last second shots I can remember either of them making happened in that same game...that wonderful win in LA against the Clippers. We all remember Love's 3 to win the game in overtime, but somewhat forgotten is Rubio's corner 3 as regulation time expired to send the game into overtime. Even more amazing about Rubio's shot is he had missed all of his threes that game, I believe, and was having a terrible shooting game.

As I said before, we don't know yet if Ricky will ever be a clutch 4th quarter player, so we can only hope. Now that this team seems to have more offensive weapons than they have had in a long time, I think Ricky can become a very good 4th quarter player by playing disruptive defense and getting the ball to the right scorer at the right time.

Any discussion of Ricky vs. Barea in the 4th needs to consider both sides of the ball. When you take into consideration Barea's much worse defense, Adelman's decision to play JJ so much at crunch time becomes even more puzzling.

The good amazing games seem to be few and far between... indeed.

I was going to mention Love's game vs. OKC when he had 51 and went shot-for-shot with Durant... but something seemed wrong about that one. Sure enough... there was. It was from 2012.

Mikkeman wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Abe, Mikkeman is citing the 4th quarter stats only. We were a different team with Rubio running the point.

Careful... that almost makes it seem like Rubio wasn't a detriment in the 4th quarter in 2014. Both players were atrocious. Barea was simply super duper bad instead of super bad.

Here's one set of stats: http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#!/clutch/advanced/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&Period=4&TeamID=1610612750

Rubio had a NEGATIVE net rating of -30.2. Barea was worse at 33.3... in games decided by 5 points or fewer. That team completely shit the bed in the 4th quarter compared to the other 3 quarters enough times that it wasn't a fluke or small sample size. From Adelman's goofy rotations to Rubio going weeks without making a 4th quarter basket to Barea sucking balls to Love missing random bunnies and free throws to Pekovic missing damn near literally every last-second shot...

Sorry to nitpick... but Rubio was a HUGE reason for the Wolves failures down the stretch that season. Just because he wasn't alone in the ineptitude shouldn't get him off the hook.

Abe that same clutch stat shows that Rubio also had higher TS% than Love in last 5 minutes of 4th quarter when the score difference was less than 5 points. So if we are using just clutch stats (that are even more noisy since sample size is smaller) then we cannot point Ricky's inefficient scoring without pointing Love's even more inefficient scoring. Too bad that you cannot select whole 4th quarter and OTs for those clutch stats. It would give little bit more reliable sample size to make argument.

I agree that Rubio's started that year by playing awfully in 4th quarter but his 4th quarter play improved as season progressed. For example his 4th quarter net rating prior all star break was -7.4 but after that it was +2.7 but still Adelman played Barea at least half of the 4th quarter.

forgetting the fact that Love was essentially triple teamed during the 4th quarter because Rubio and Brewer couldn't shoot a lick, Martin shat his pants everytime he touched the ball, and Pek couldn't make a 1 foot shot. Is everybody's memories really that bad that they can't remember these games and have to go to these random advanced stats to show that Rubio wasn't awful?